A4-3400 vs Celeron N2815

A4-3400 vs Celeron N2815 Performance Spectrum

A4-3400

2 / 2

1,066

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron N2815

2 / 2

1,068

+0.2%

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

A4-3400 vs Celeron N2815 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

A4-3400 vs Celeron N2815: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

A4-3400

2011

Why buy it

✅300% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Celeron N2815.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,066 vs 1,068).
❌6400% higher power demand at 65W vs 1W.

Celeron N2815

2013

Why buy it

✅+0.2% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 1W instead of 65W, a 64W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A4-3400.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N2815 better than A4-3400?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A4-3400 is ahead with a 1.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N2815 pulls ahead with 0.2% better PassMark.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N2815 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Celeron N2815 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron N2815 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.2% better PassMark.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Celeron N2815 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2011) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A4-3400 vs Celeron N2815 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

A4-3400

The A4-3400 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Llano (2011−2012) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 2.7 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FM1. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,066 points. Launch price was $50.

Celeron N2815

The Celeron N2815 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 December 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.86 GHz, with boost up to 2.13 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 7.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3L-1066. Passmark benchmark score: 1,068 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A4-3400 and Celeron N2815 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.7 GHz on the A4-3400 versus 2.13 GHz on the Celeron N2815 — a 23.6% clock advantage for the A4-3400 (base: 2.7 GHz vs 1.86 GHz). The A4-3400 uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron N2815 uses Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) (22 nm). In PassMark, the A4-3400 scores 1,066 against the Celeron N2815's 1,068 — a 0.2% lead for the Celeron N2815. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A4-3400 vs 1 MB on the Celeron N2815.

Feature	A4-3400	Celeron N2815
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.7 GHz+27%	2.13 GHz
Base Clock	2.7 GHz+45%	1.86 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	1 MB
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	1 MB+100%
Process	32 nm	22 nm-31%
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)
PassMark	1,066	1,068
Geekbench 6 Single	349	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-3400 uses the FM1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron N2815 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1600 on the A4-3400 versus 1066 on the Celeron N2815 — the A4-3400 supports 50.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A4-3400 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (A4-3400) vs 4 (Celeron N2815) — the A4-3400 offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: A55,A75 (A4-3400) and FCBGA1170 (Celeron N2815).

Feature	A4-3400	Celeron N2815
Socket	FM1	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600+50%	1066
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+100%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16+300%	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A4-3400) vs true (Celeron N2815). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 6410D (A4-3400) and Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Celeron N2815) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-3400 targets Budget Desktop. Direct competitor: A4-3400 rivals Pentium G620; Celeron N2815 rivals AMD A4-1250.